Criminal Law Outline.doc

7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc

1/21

Criminal Law Outline

Justification of Punishment

Retributivism: Punishment is justified because people deserve it for acting immorally/past-

lookingI. Retribution

a. Degrees of culpability based on circumstance

i. Regina v. Dudley and Stephens: murder of shipmate for food !as it lessmorally !rong b/c of circumstance"

II. Idea of proportionality of punishment

#tilitarianism: Punishment is justified because it serves a purpose/for!ard-lookingI. Deterrence: Reduction of future crime

a. $pecific deterrence: D decides not to commit future crimes

b. %eneral deterrence: &ther people see punishment' decide not to commit crime

i. Regina v. DudleyII. Incapacitation: prevention from re-offending

a. Punish every offender e(ually orb. )ttempt to identify potential re-offenders and incapacitate them

i. *uestion of fairness

ii. $entences based on individual characteristicsc. Does not have to be in traditional form of jail

III. Rehabilitation: offenders can be changed/treated

a. Idea that crime is psychological disturbance

b. IndividualityI+. %eneral ,riti(ues of #tilitarianism:

a. ot fair to use defendants for greater purpose

Related Ideas:

I. ustification v. 01cuse

a. ustification: sometimes !/ justification it is said that no crime has beencommitted

i. $elf-defense

b. 01cuse: crime !as committed' but person is e1cused circumstances of

compulsion can e1cuse a personi. Insanity' mental illness

II. $hould punishment consider individual factor such as age/race"

III. Public shamingI+. 01traordinary 2amily ,ircumstances

a. U.S. v. Johnson: mother !/ four young childrens sentence reduced b/c of

3e1traordinary4 family responsibilitiesb. #tilitarian: looking at family situations 5 greater good of society

c. Retribution: less culpability !hen there is good e1cuse

Criminal Conduct: Culpability


2/21

)ctus reus plus mens rea

Actus Reus6objective 5 voluntary act7+oluntary ,onduct 5 !illed by actor

0lements 68P, 9.;7:I. ,onduct: physical behavior of D

a. )ll crimes must have conduct element 6act or omission7

b. 8P,: 9abit: voluntary

ypnosis: involuntary

?. $leep!alking: involuntary

c. Martin v. State: police brought drunk man to high!ay court ruled act must be

voluntary to be crimed. People v.Newton: man kills police officer !hen unconscious not voluntary so

not culpablee. People v.Decina: man kills another b/c he has epileptic sei@ure !hile driving

a!are of condition and voluntarily drove so culpable

II. ,ircumstance: objective fact or conditionIII. Result: conse(uence/outcome of conduct

&mission

I. 8P, 9


3/21

Must look at mens rea for each element of the crime must ha!e mens rea for

each element to be con!icted"

#!ery statute does not always ha!e circumstance$ conduct and result" %n an e&am$

identify which apply$ then fi'ure out which mens rea is re(uired for each element"

)ou can do this without lookin' at facts" #lement analysis is not related to facts$ but

what is written into the statute" Once you look at the statute$ you 'o to facts andfi'ure out if had the mens rea re(uired in each element of the crime

,ulpable if you had a choice in conduct

Difficult to prove state of mind' but criminal la! is about subjective blame!orthiness'

e1cept in case of negligence

o 8ust infer

,ulpable 8ental $tate 68P, 9


4/21

f. Risks unacceptable if social good out!eighs harm

g. Remember to distinguish bet!een reckless conduct and reckless result

I+. egligence: not a!are of risk but should have beena. 8P,: objective standard

i. 9


5/21

i. Different from saying you !erent a!are there !as a la!' deals !ith

misinterpreting facts 5 D kno!s actions may be governed by la! but

concludes that they are not illegalc. 8istake of 2act: 8istake over !hat

d. 9


6/21

i. U.S. v. Staples: D una!are gun !as automatic silence by statute does not

mean strict liability do not assume strict liability if it !ould criminali@e

broad range of seemingly innocent conduct 6talks about tradition of guno!nership7

c. $trict liability crimes have lo!er penalties 6fines7

i. 01ceptions: statutory rape' some felony murder

Rape

Rape la!s historically !ere about protecting !omens virginity regarded !omen more as

property

,urrently' rape la! is more about se1ual relations bet!een men and !omen and !hat the

criminal la!s role is in those relationships

o 8ore focus on rape as crime of violence

o +iolating rights

o ,an be against male or female

8odel Penal ,odeI. 8P, 9


7/21

ii. 8en have to use force if !omen resist

b. Lhreat of force

i. Chose point of vie!" D or P"ii. &ften victims fear must be reasonable to count

iii. onphysical threat:

. State v. $hopson: 68L7 principal threatens not to let studentgraduate ruling that intimidation is not 3force4 for purposes of

rape statute did not say anything about consent so you could not

argue that she did not give consent


8/21

II. Fook to statute

a. #nder 8P,' default is recklessness' but many states have negligence standard

6lo!er than recklessness7 !hich means D !ould be liable if he did not kno! butshould have

b. ,onse(uence of negligence standard: maybe men do not get to have as much

se1 as they !ould like' but a higher standard might have a higher price 5 morevictimi@ation of !omen

c. $trict liability standard" 8istake of fact 6consent7 not a defense in 8)

""". Casesa. Coonwealth v. Sherry:

b. Coonwealth v. (ischer: 6P)7 enacts strict liability and does not allo! D to

defend on basis that he made a reasonable mistake

I+. ,onduct 2orce:a. Did he purposely force her"

b. Did he force her !ith reckless mens rea"

*omicide

8urder

$tatutory approach 6degrees7 and 8P, approach 6no degrees7

8ainly looking at result element of death 6circumstance is that the victim !as alive

before the act7

Premeditation can be used to separate out degrees

o )ppraoch M: Premeditated murder more culpable b/c of the time of planning

o )pproach M


9/21

?. State v. (orrest: man helps terminally ill father die has all mens

rea re(uirements but is seemingly less morally culpable' but meets

stdegree murder re(uirementsc. $econd Degree

i. Intentional killing 6malice aforethou'ht7 that is not premeditated

ii. ot premeditated' deliberate' and !illful. )nderson case: murder reduced from stto


10/21

vie!point of a person in the actors situation under the circumstances as

he believes them to be.4

#nintended Billings 68anslaughter7

I. ,ommon la!:

a. #nla!ful homicide !ithout malice aforethought 6no intent or kno!ledge actionmight cause death or reckless disregard for life7

i. Difficult distinction

ii. 8ens rea of reckless 6!anton7 conduct or negligenceb. +oluntary v. Involuntary

i. +oluntary: intentional killing mitigated by heat of passion' provocation 5

!ant to cause death but you dont have control of emotions

ii. Involuntary: unintentional killing 6reckless' negligent7 !ithout malicec. ,ivil v. ,riminal Fiability

i. Coonwealth v. +elans%y: fire at nightclub manslaughter based on

omissions and affirmative acts reasonable person should have been a!are

of risk. mens rea !anton or reckless conduct for manslaughter

d. &bjective v. $ubjective $tandards of Fiabilityi. State v. +illias: negligent parents and child dies ordinary negligence

enough to convict of involuntary manslaughter 6usually need gross

negligence7 did parents e1ercise reasonable care" &bjective standard 5 !/subjective parents may not have been convicted

e. Fine bet!een 8urder and 8anslaughter

i. Chen recklessness sho!s !anton disregard for life' it is murder

6considered malice aforethought7. ury decision' consider factors such as

a. 8agnitude of risk

b. Ds a!areness of riskc. ustification of risk

ii. Coonwealth v. Malone: boy shoots friend playing Russian roulette

second degree murder rather than manslaughter even though there !as nointent it !as gross recklessness and enough to be murder b/c it sho!ed

disregard for human life 5 although no intent' gross negligence sho!ed

reckless !anton disregard

iii. U.S. v. (leing: drunk driver s!erves and kills second degree murder didnot necessitate intent to kill !anton and gross deviation from reasonable

conduct !as enough 5 constitutes malice aforethought

. self-induced into1ication not a defense 68P, agrees7II. 8P, 9omicide is manslaughter !hen committed recklessly 6consciously disregards

a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct !ill cause the result7b. #nder 8P,' mens rea of recklessness 6


11/21

c. o provocation rule 6see 8P, above7 5 6c7 replaced !ith e1treme emotional

disturbance standard for !hich there is reasonable e1planation or e1cuse to

change to manslaughteri. I think victim must be the person that harmed you for reduction of crime

in this instance' !hich is also the majority rule

d. Joth subjective and objective: 6c7 determining from the vie!point of a person inthe Ds situation 6objective7 in the circumstances as D believed them to be

6subjective7

i. Issue: >o! much do info you allo! in !hen you are subjective"e. o Distinction bet!een voluntary and involuntary

2elony 8urder Rule

I. Death occurring during course of felony or fleeing the felony is murder 5 strictliability

a. 8ust be inherently dangerous felony to (ualify

i. %enerally' the doctrine is too broad

b. Lransferred intent 5 culpable mens rea for felony gets transferred to murder6imputation of mens rea that does not actually e1ist7

c. Regina v. Serne: D set house on fire and son dies guilty of murder b/c hecommitted felony

II. Pro1imate ,ause Lheory

a. ot just the 3but for4 cause but a pro1imate cause of the deathIII. 3In furtherance4 or 3agency4 theory

a. killing must be in furtherance of the crime

b. person responsible for his actions or the actions of his accomplice

I+. Ideas behind 2elony 8urder Rule:a. Deters people from engaging in felonies or engaging in risky behavior !hile

committing a felony

b. ,ausal theory: ) D that engages in risky behavior should be responsible for anyresult of that behavior' even if unintended

c. 2oreseeability: D should kno! this could happen

+. 8P, : limits felony murder rule to cases of robbery' rape' arson' burglary'kidnapping' felonious escape

a. 8P, is very limiting on the rule

b. )ssumes reckless disregard for human life

c. Jurden of proof falls to defendant to sho! he is not brutal' malicious killer+I. ,o-2elons

a. &nce you accept felony murder rule' complicity theory !ill make co-felons

accountableb. State v. Canola: 6 GEE7 D not guilty of murder !hen co-felon !as killed by the

victim of their robbery

i. majority rule: only guilty if co-felon is killed as a result of Ds actionsduring felony

ii. agency theory

c. $aylor v. Superior Court: 6,) GE=7: D !as guilty !hen victim of robbery killed

co-felon


12/21

i. co-felons !ere responsible for provoking resistance had mens rea of

conscious disregard for human life and thus malice

+II. ,an be different from complicity because in complicity you might not have there(uisite intent to be convicted' but you could be convicted under felony murder

+he ,i'nificance of Resultin' *arm

Causation

Prosecutor must prove cause in fact and pro1imate cause

,ommon la! approach 6more accepted7

o Jut for cause

o Pro1imate ,ause

Is there an intervening cause"

If so' is it superseding 6breaks connection and D is not liable7

Remoteness and foreseeability are factors

8P, 9


13/21

b. 8echanical or scientific

c. People v. )costa: helicopter crash !hile follo!ing police chase' debate over

foreseeability' found him to be pro1imate cause 6events foreseeable7 but notconvicted b/c of lack of malice 6no mens rea7

d. People v. )r,on: t!o fires' fireman dies b/c of uman )ctions that Recklessly Risk the Result

a. Drag racing/Russian Roulette casesi. 8anslaughter

b. )sk about foreseeability' superseding cause

c. Jring in moral argumentsd. Coonwealth v. Root: involuntary manslaughter" Drag racing' one racer

s!erved and killed self' other driver not found guilty' victims action a

superseding cause b/c he recklessly chose to s!erve into a head-on collisioni. 8ajority rejects foreseeability but dissent says D helped create the

dangerous situation and should be guilty

e. State v. Mc(adden: involuntary manslaughter" Drag racing' victim killed self and

innocent people !hen he !ent into oncoming traffic' court looks more atforeseeability and convicts D

f. Coonwealth v.)ttencio: Russian roulette' D guilty of manslaughter' inherent

difference bet!een Russian roulette and drag racing b/c purpose of Russianroulette is for someone to die

Attempt

8ens rea:

o the mens rea re(uired for the substantive crime


14/21

o 8ust also intend the act' !hich' if carried out' !ould have resulted in commission

of the crime

,ommon la! dra!s later line for actus reus than 8P, 6makes it harder to convict but

less likely to arrest someone that !ould change mind7

Idea that you do not !ant to punish for thought

o ,ompetes !ith ideas that thought/intent speaks to culpability and you !ant to beable to prevent crimes

8ens ReaI. ,ommon Fa!

a. D must have the same mens rea re(uired for acts !hich' if they had been carried

out' !ould have resulted in the commission of the crime

b. D must intendi. Lo do the act 6conduct7

ii. Lo accomplish the result

iii. #nder the same circumstances 6must kno! the circumstance of target

offense7II. 8P, 9K.=67

a. $ame mens rea as re(uired for commission of the crimeb. Did D have

i. ,onduct: Purpose

ii. Result: Bno!ledge or Purpose 6this makes it easier to convict for attempt7iii. ,ircumstance : !hatever mens rea is re(uired for commission of

completed crime 62irst' you !ould look at the statute7

III. Sallwood v. State: >I+N man rapes ; !omen' attempted murder" o b/c he did not

intend that they !ould be killed' only recklessly disregarded the possibility 6resultelement7

I+. %enerally' there is no crime of attempted manslaughter b/c manslaughter has areckless or result and not intended

)ctus Reus: Preparation v. )ttempt

I. Do not !ant to punish for thought !hen there is the chance the person !ill changemind

II. Lests: Pro1imity' 8P,

III. ,ommon Fa! 6Pro1imity Lest7: 8ere preparation is not enough' must !ait until last

step before crime is committed to be an attempt crimea. *uestion is !hat is yet to be done"

b. People v. Ri,,o: bank robbery plan' Ds not guilty b/c they !ere not far enough

along in the robbery under the pro1imity testc. o abandonment

I+. 8P, )pproach: 9K.=676c7 5 substantial step to!ard commission of crime test

increases ability to move in before crime 6more follo!ed7a. *uestion is !hat has been done 5 is it enough to sho! firm intent"

b. U.S. v. Jac%son: follo!ed 8P, in attempted robbery case' said there !as

substantial step


15/21

c. )bandonment: allo!ed under 8P, as affirmative defense for people !ho truly

voluntarily abandon the crimes

-roup Criminality: Complicity

>olding accomplice accountable for actions of another during a crime

D must intend to aid in the principal act

If accomplice has the re(uisite mens rea' you impute the act of the principal actor 5 you

do not impute mens rea

6Different from felony murder' !here if the D has the re(uisite mens rea' you impute the

mens rea for murder7

Jroad doctrine

Jalances holding people accountable for the risk they caused and the level of

involvement in creating the risky situation

Re(uirements

I. Lhe D aided or abetted 6actus reus7

a. D must have directly or indirectly encouraged or facilitated the commission of theoffense

b. #nder 8P,' attempt to aid is enough' !hereas under common la! you actually

have to aid the person 6most states follo! common la! here7c. Remember' there is no 3but for4 element 5 no need the prove the crime !ould not

have been committed 3but for4 the aid

II. D >ad the re(uisite mens reaa. 8ens rea for the crime re(uired

i. Result: kind of culpability sufficient for the commission of the offense as

provided in the definition of the substantive crime. as long as you intend to aid' there is no purpose/intent for the result

6can be troublesome7

ad Purpose 6Intent to aid7 5 act !ith an affirmative desire that his acts

have an encouraging or assisting effect. Lhis promotes or facilitates the

crime/ purpose to promote commission of crime/ assist party to engage inconduct that forms the basis of the offense

. once you aid' you can impute the conduct of the principal actor

III. Lhe person abetted or incited actually committed the offense

8ens Rea

I. )ctions of the Principal

a. ic%s v. U.S.: one man kills another' D used encouraging !ords if D intended toencourage murder' the action is imputed to him

b. State v. *ladstone: D told other person !here he could buy marijuana' had no

purpose to aid the principal in selling marijuana 6the crime7 even though kne! itcould happen' so not guilty


16/21

i. Bno!ledge not enough' need purpose

c. People v./uparello: D looking for e1-girlfriend' henchmen kill the guy !ho

might be able to locate heri. Lhey convicted him based on imputing the purpose of the henchmen but

this D&0$ &L follo! the 8P, b/c he did not have purpose in relation to

the commission of the crime 6murder7II. )ttendant ,ircumstances

III. Result

a. People v. Mc0ay' convicted of aiding manslaughter based on aiding incommission of grossly negligent act

b. People v. Russell: ; kids shooting guns' no proof as to !hich killed the principal 5

all convicted b/c all had the necessary mens rea for murder

I+. Drag racing and complicitya. )ccomplice has to intend to aid the principal actor in the activity (uestion

becomes !hich activity 5 in drag racing the accomplice intends to aid the drag

racing' but not the murder/manslaughter

+. Dangerous activitya. State v. )yers: no complicity for involuntary manslaughter !hen selling gun to A

year old !ithout permitb. State v. $ravis: complicity for involuntary manslaughter !hen D let K-yr. old

drive defective motorcycle in area !/ lots of kids around

c. Lhe theory for holding an accomplice liable in dangerous activity is that theyaided the principal actor in the dangerous activity. Lhey risked the death of

someone by aiding in the dangerous activity

d. Lhere is also an element of closeness to the actual activity that distinguishes these

cases 6idea of fairness7 court seems to raise the aid re(uirement in instances ofrecklessness and negligence

)ctus ReusI. +ilco1 v. Je##ery: convicted for aiding !hen man !ent to !atch a man illegally play

instrument even though he did not encourage him

a. 8ost states !ill rule differently than here b/c there !as no actual aidII. State v. $ally' telegram case' telegram aided the brothers in committing murder' so he

is guilty of murder as !ell

Conspiracy

8P,:

o

) person is guilty of conspiracy if he a'reesto:,ommit an offense)ttempt to commit an offense

$olicit another person to commit an offense

)id someone in the planning or commission of the offense

&vert )ct: if its a lesser offense 6misdemeanor' ;rddegree felony7' under the 8P, there

must be an overt act and many states re(uire overt act for any crime

8ens Rea:


17/21

o Purpose for the actus reus of agreeing' intent for crime

Purpose can be sho!n by monetary gains

o $et 8R for ),s and result to !here they need to be for policy reasons

,ommon Fa!

o )t common la!' a conspiracy need not be based on an e1press

agreement. 2urthermore' an agreement can e1ist although not all of the parties toit have kno!ledge of every detail of the arrangement' as long as each party isa!are of its essential nature. It is enough that each person a'rees' at a minimum'

to commit or facilitate some of the acts leading to the substantive crime.

o InPin%ertonjurisdictions' conspiracy liability also produces liability for the

substantive offenses of any other co-conspirator !hen those offenses arecommitted in furtherance of the conspiracy' even if the particular conspirator isnt

a!are of the acts or even of the actor.

o InBridgesjurisdictions' this is taken even further' and conspiracy provides

liability for any criminal acts of co-conspirators' even !hen &L in furtherance

of the conspiratorial objective' !hen those actions are natural and probable

conse(uences of the nature of the conspiracy. Defense to ,onspiracy

o Renuciation: D th!arts the success of the conspiracy !ith the purpose of

renuciating $ome jurisdictions allo! for a substantial step' but doesnt have to be

th!arts

o Cithdra!al: D tells his co-conspirators that hes out or he tells the police

everything #nder common la! 6Pinkerton7 he is still liable for everything that

happened up to the !ithdra!al

o

)bandonment: allco-conspirators abandon the project

#&culpation

)ll elements of the crime are there' but D not held accountable

ustification v. 01cuse

I. ustification: admit that D did something but say that it !as a good or sensible action

5 morally right to commit the crime' better that D committed the crime

a. $elf defense

II. 01cuse: admit action !as bad but D does not accept full 6or any7 responsibilitya. Insanity' forced to commit crime

$elf Defense

I. 8P, 9;.=?a. 67: 3use of force upon or to!ard another person is justifiable !hen the actor

believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting


18/21

himself against he use of unla!ful force by such other person on the present

occasion4

b. 6


19/21

complaints' 6;7 no time or opportunity to resort to courts' 6?7 no

evidence of violence to!ard personnel or innocents in escape and 6K7

prisoner reports self once danger gone.e. United States v. Schoon6GG


20/21

ii. Rape- asks !hat kinds of threats ought someone to submit to vs. !hat

kinds of threats ought a person to resist although talking about

perpetrator not victimiii. $elf-defense- !hat can one do to save self !hen harms innocent rather

than aggressor

f. 8P, 9 !ill be inflictedh. Imminence and Duress: United States v. (leing

i. 2acts- charged !/ helping Boreans do propaganda he claims duress

b/c had been threatened that eh !ould be forced to sleep in caves and!alk thru cold' probably to death.

ii. Rule- Danger of death or %J> not immediate. Resistance must have

brought you to last ditch. 017 started !alking thru sno! and reali@ed!ould die soon.

Insanity 601cuse7

7 8P,: at time of criminal conduct because of mental disease/defect defendant lacks

substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his

conduct to the re(uirements of la!


21/21

Into1ication

7 +oluntary Into1icationa. %enerally not an e1cuse unless used for specific intent crimes

Documents

Criminal Law Outline.doc